Ok, here's my basic thinking...
The Pistons were coming off an NBA Championship in 04, making it to game 7 of the finals in 05, and the best regular season in 06(losing to the eventual champs).
Ben Wallace was the face of the Pistons franchise, and "the heart and soul" of the Pistons heralded defense.
Most people believed there was no way Dumars would let him leave.
I believe that perhaps Paxson offered Wallace a huge contract because he felt Dumars was in a position where he had to match, and thus was somewhat sticking it to a division rival, but at the same time perhaps hurting Detroit's future flexibility with regards to the luxury tax.
Basically, do you think its possible Paxson made his offer, with the assumption that the Pistons would match?
Did Paxson REALLY want Ben Wallace for $15 mil per?
Moderators: HomoSapien, AshyLarrysDiaper, coldfish, Payt10, Ice Man, Michael Jackson, dougthonus, Tommy Udo 6 , kulaz3000, fleet, DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat, RedBulls23
Did Paxson REALLY want Ben Wallace for $15 mil per?
-
bstein14
- RealGM
- Posts: 32,702
- And1: 9,539
- Joined: Jun 22, 2001
-
Friend_Of_Haley
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,139
- And1: 374
- Joined: Aug 16, 2003
- Location: Locked Out
-
BrooklynBulls
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 32,734
- And1: 2,655
- Joined: May 13, 2007
- Location: Avidly reading WillPenney.com
- Contact:
-
bstein14
- RealGM
- Posts: 32,702
- And1: 9,539
- Joined: Jun 22, 2001
BrooklynBulls wrote:Doing so, as bstein suggests, locks up our finances for a week pending matching. Basically, doing it on purpose would make it impossible for us to pursue other free agents at all. And considering we had little to no frontcourt, and only one year to use the capspace, thats a very silly thing to do.
I remember the circumstance though.
Wallace was offered $60 million over 4 years, which topped Dumars' offer of $60 million over 5 years.
Ben Wallace's agent came to Dumars and let him know that they would give Dumars a chance to match it, but that Chicago needed to know right away (like that day) because they wanted to persue other FA's if Ben was going to resign with Detroit.
So basically the scenario was created in which Dumars had to make a huge decision with no time, and I'm wondering if Paxson thought that Dumars would pay the extra $3 million per season.
I also wonder who the Bulls would have signed with all that money.
-
BrooklynBulls
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 32,734
- And1: 2,655
- Joined: May 13, 2007
- Location: Avidly reading WillPenney.com
- Contact:
bstein14 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-Ben Wallace's agent came to Dumars and let him know that they would give Dumars a chance to match it, but that Chicago needed to know right away (like that day) because they wanted to persue other FA's if Ben was going to resign with Detroit.
That was just a courtesy, because Detroit could have taken all 7 days, and I believe that even if you make an offer, your salary is tied up until the league reviews it. I'm sure some posters more knowledgable about these matters can address this.I also wonder who the Bulls would have signed with all that money.
Gooden, Harrington, Nene, Wilcox, Przbilla, Nazr were all candidates.
-
BrooklynBulls
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 32,734
- And1: 2,655
- Joined: May 13, 2007
- Location: Avidly reading WillPenney.com
- Contact:
bstein14 wrote:Ben was an unrestricted FA and if he wanted to play for Chicago for $1 million per year Detroit had no right to match it.
Ben's agent gave Dumars a chance to match it (at least from reports) and Dumars declined to do so.
If Detroit was offering as much money as Chicago, Ben would still be a Piston.
I didn't remember that he was unrestricted. In that case, all Paxson had to threaten to do was sign him for 60/4, in order to get Dumars to up his offer. In case of a UFA, there are no matching rights whatsoever. If no formal offer was made, the Bulls would be under no obligation to sign him. You're saying that Paxson told ben wallace, 60 million, 4 years, and then his agent told Detroit they could have a chance to match. Detroit declined. Now, the bulls, their "plan" backfiring, could just have gone ahead....and not signed him.
-
bullzman23
- RealGM
- Posts: 14,557
- And1: 3
- Joined: May 23, 2001
- Location: Evanston
It's not a rookie contract so the Pistons couldn't literally have matched. If Paxson simply wanted to screw the Piston's financially he could have withdrawn his offer after discovering that the Pistons weren't going to "match".
There were many factors that went into the Wallace signing. I think it went in this order:
1. Sign the best FA available to help us win now.
2. Upgrade our front-court.
3. Help us get past Shaq.
4. Weaken a rival.
5. Make us more respectable.
6. Make money by signing a (then) popular player.
7. Make Chandler expendable.
There were many factors that went into the Wallace signing. I think it went in this order:
1. Sign the best FA available to help us win now.
2. Upgrade our front-court.
3. Help us get past Shaq.
4. Weaken a rival.
5. Make us more respectable.
6. Make money by signing a (then) popular player.
7. Make Chandler expendable.
-
sonny
- RealGM
- Posts: 17,968
- And1: 271
- Joined: Nov 16, 2002
- Location: Chicago
bullzman23 wrote:It's not a rookie contract so the Pistons couldn't literally have matched. If Paxson simply wanted to screw the Piston's financially he could have withdrawn his offer after discovering that the Pistons weren't going to "match".
There were many factors that went into the Wallace signing. I think it went in this order:
1. Make more money with a marketable player.
2. Sign the best FA available to help us win now.
3. Upgrade our front-court.
4. Help us get past Shaq.
5. Weaken a rival.
6. Make us more respectable.
7. Make Chandler expendable.
Fixed.
Reports had the signing being a Reinsdorf move, I also remember Pax saying Tyson was gone regardless of them signing Ben
-
bullzman23
- RealGM
- Posts: 14,557
- And1: 3
- Joined: May 23, 2001
- Location: Evanston
sonny wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Fixed.
Reports had the signing being a Reinsdorf move, I also remember Pax saying Tyson was gone regardless of them signing Ben
I don't think Pax said that. He doesn't speak candidly about players like that. Chandler said himself, that he knew his time was up, especially after the Wallace signing. Is that what you're speaking of?
Also, not that I don't believe you, but can you back up the Reinsdorf comment. JR probably 'okay'd' the signing and maybe even encouraged it, but I think it was clear that Paxson really wanted Wallace too. I mean he and Skiles both flew out over to his house.
-
bullzman23
- RealGM
- Posts: 14,557
- And1: 3
- Joined: May 23, 2001
- Location: Evanston
bstein14 wrote:If the Bulls would have taken away the offer, Ben's agent Arn Tellum probably would have been pretty pissed, and he's somewhat of a "powerful agent" so I don't think that was an option.
You're right, it's not a good thing to take back an offer, but it's certainly not a good idea to offer an outrageous conract that you don't want to give someone simply with the hopes that Detroit screws its financial future. I'm sure Paxson could care less about Detroit's future.
-
BrooklynBulls
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 32,734
- And1: 2,655
- Joined: May 13, 2007
- Location: Avidly reading WillPenney.com
- Contact:
bstein14 wrote:If the Bulls would have taken away the offer, Ben's agent Arn Tellum probably would have been pretty pissed, and he's somewhat of a "powerful agent" so I don't think that was an option.
Pissed agent, or aging player you never wanted, who even you think is overpaid? Hmmm, decisions, decisions.
-
SensiBull
- Starter
- Posts: 2,385
- And1: 326
- Joined: Jul 14, 2006
- Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
A few recollections:
The Bulls portfolio of contracts, when Paxson took over from Krause, was structured in such a way that the 2004-2005 offseason not only marked the end of both Tyson's and Eddy's rookie contracts, but the end of Antonio Davis', which was a very rich contract indeed. I can only assume that this was because, at the time that they were drafted (Eddy and Tyson), and, in the first two seasons that they were here, there was great optimism about their futures, and the team wanted to ensure that it had plenty of free agency money to throw at them both.
However, frankly, outside of retaining these two, the free agency class of that offseason, 2005, was very, very weak. So, I think it's a good bet that the reason we went with Antonio Davis as a free agent in an earlier offseason, aside from his superior veteran leadership presence to that of Charles Oakley, was that he had a fat contract that expired right around the time that we knew we would be re-negotiating Eddy and Tyson.
What threw things off course was when Eddy's heart issue came up, approaching that offseason. Suddenly, it became apparently unwise to re-sign Eddy Curry, and, simultaneously, Tyson seemed to be regressing.
I beg to differ with those who portray the Ben Wallace of that offseason as the brass ring of the league so many expected him to be. That's exactly what the Bulls Marketing Department needs fans to think. So, it's no surprise to me that so many came away with that impression.
However, relying on Ben Wallace's credentials as a 4-time DPOY is like calling today's Shaquille O'Neal a "perennial all-star". [It's an exaggeration, I know, but it makes the point.] It's been true throughout his career, but, as I'm known to repeat on this board, when you acquire a player, you don't acquire his past. You acquire his future, or, as the say in the investment business, "Past performance is no guarantee of future results"; and, if there wasn't enough statistical evidence that Ben Wallace was headed for decline (a subject that would probably generate double-digit page counts in a thread all its own), there was the fact that his career was largely built on exceptional athleticism, despite what is traditionally considered too small a frame for his position, and he was 31(?) at the time. Intuitively, at that age, a 4-year deal alone seemed a bit rich for some but at $15MM/year? Seemed very rich to me, but, there were those who felt it had to be done, and that it didn't matter if he didn't perform, because he would soon become an expiring contract, which is a very tradeable asset, anyway.
Another reason, the Ben Wallace signing may have seemed to justify such a high salary was that there was the alleged black cloud over the organization because of the 2000 free agency debacle by Jerry Krause. I personally dispute this reasoning, because MOST poor performing teams struggle to sign big name free agents, particularly when they have no holdovers from years of prior success to salvage any optimism for near-term success, the way perhaps Dwyane Wade will for an otherwise abysmal Miami Heat who will be absolutely SCREWED for free agents if he's somehow not around when Shaq's contract is up. Krause is just a convenient scapegoat for what ANY team in the cellar experiences. [FWIW, I don't think that the hiring of Scott Skiles was any less signifcant a deterrent in warding off free agents (Jason Kidd, Tim Thomas, etc.) than an off-season 7 years ago by a GM who is no longer around to repeat it.]
There was as already touched upon, the fact that Eddy, our starting Center prior to the Wallace signing, no longer appeared to be a practical option. So, immediately, that free agency money had to go to a Center to replace Eddy. And there weren't many, if any, other Centers in that free agent class. In that situation, simple supply-and-demand mandates paying a premium for his services.
And, there was the fact that Ben was a valuable member of a recent NBA Championship team. I don't so much mean that in terms of how desirable he was as an acquisition, but in terms of what lengths one could have expected Detroit to go in order to retain his services. That commands a premium.
Fair enough. Hindsight is 20/20. However, I'm not relying on hindsight when I say that I was opposed to the signing and far more in favour of investing across a range of younger players, closer in age to Eddy and Tyson, primarily because I had no idea that the franchise was willing to part with Tyson. So, it seemed logical to me that we needed to sign someone who could develop WITH Tyson. Mostly, I favored it because it seemed to me that acquiring a young free agent, like Drew Gooden or Channing Frye, preserved the developmental perpetuity of the club. It would keep us in a position where someone was always developing, coming into his prime, much the way we now seem to suddenly now want Noah and Tyrus to instantly do. Perhaps their higher cielings will justify the delay, but, then again, we thought that about Eddy and Tyson too.
But, I also felt that diversification was a wiser approach to such a weak free agent class. It allowed for shorter contracts, which would have given us the flexibility to switch horses mid-race, if you will, by offering high dollar amounts for short periods, or lower dollar amounts for longer periods.
But throwing a boat-load of cash at a player over 30 seemed like a real desparation move to me. I tried to warm to the idea, but I'm not the least bit surpised that things have turned out the way they have.
There's no question that there was a bit of a skill redundancy between Tyson and Ben, but, in my book, Tyson's youth and relative affordability made him the much wiser option, and a move to Center, while sorting through the PF's available, like SAR, Gooden and Frye, seemed like somewhat of a move away from the inside outside defensive paradox created by coupling an interior scorer like Eddy Curry with an outside shooter like Ben Gordon, but certainly, in hindsight, would have been a much more digestible change than the offensively stagnant, jump-shot-oriented schemes later implemented by Skiles.
On the other hand, we won 49 games last season and got to the 2nd round of the playoffs with those schemes. So, what the hell do I know.
The Bulls portfolio of contracts, when Paxson took over from Krause, was structured in such a way that the 2004-2005 offseason not only marked the end of both Tyson's and Eddy's rookie contracts, but the end of Antonio Davis', which was a very rich contract indeed. I can only assume that this was because, at the time that they were drafted (Eddy and Tyson), and, in the first two seasons that they were here, there was great optimism about their futures, and the team wanted to ensure that it had plenty of free agency money to throw at them both.
However, frankly, outside of retaining these two, the free agency class of that offseason, 2005, was very, very weak. So, I think it's a good bet that the reason we went with Antonio Davis as a free agent in an earlier offseason, aside from his superior veteran leadership presence to that of Charles Oakley, was that he had a fat contract that expired right around the time that we knew we would be re-negotiating Eddy and Tyson.
What threw things off course was when Eddy's heart issue came up, approaching that offseason. Suddenly, it became apparently unwise to re-sign Eddy Curry, and, simultaneously, Tyson seemed to be regressing.
I beg to differ with those who portray the Ben Wallace of that offseason as the brass ring of the league so many expected him to be. That's exactly what the Bulls Marketing Department needs fans to think. So, it's no surprise to me that so many came away with that impression.
However, relying on Ben Wallace's credentials as a 4-time DPOY is like calling today's Shaquille O'Neal a "perennial all-star". [It's an exaggeration, I know, but it makes the point.] It's been true throughout his career, but, as I'm known to repeat on this board, when you acquire a player, you don't acquire his past. You acquire his future, or, as the say in the investment business, "Past performance is no guarantee of future results"; and, if there wasn't enough statistical evidence that Ben Wallace was headed for decline (a subject that would probably generate double-digit page counts in a thread all its own), there was the fact that his career was largely built on exceptional athleticism, despite what is traditionally considered too small a frame for his position, and he was 31(?) at the time. Intuitively, at that age, a 4-year deal alone seemed a bit rich for some but at $15MM/year? Seemed very rich to me, but, there were those who felt it had to be done, and that it didn't matter if he didn't perform, because he would soon become an expiring contract, which is a very tradeable asset, anyway.
Another reason, the Ben Wallace signing may have seemed to justify such a high salary was that there was the alleged black cloud over the organization because of the 2000 free agency debacle by Jerry Krause. I personally dispute this reasoning, because MOST poor performing teams struggle to sign big name free agents, particularly when they have no holdovers from years of prior success to salvage any optimism for near-term success, the way perhaps Dwyane Wade will for an otherwise abysmal Miami Heat who will be absolutely SCREWED for free agents if he's somehow not around when Shaq's contract is up. Krause is just a convenient scapegoat for what ANY team in the cellar experiences. [FWIW, I don't think that the hiring of Scott Skiles was any less signifcant a deterrent in warding off free agents (Jason Kidd, Tim Thomas, etc.) than an off-season 7 years ago by a GM who is no longer around to repeat it.]
There was as already touched upon, the fact that Eddy, our starting Center prior to the Wallace signing, no longer appeared to be a practical option. So, immediately, that free agency money had to go to a Center to replace Eddy. And there weren't many, if any, other Centers in that free agent class. In that situation, simple supply-and-demand mandates paying a premium for his services.
And, there was the fact that Ben was a valuable member of a recent NBA Championship team. I don't so much mean that in terms of how desirable he was as an acquisition, but in terms of what lengths one could have expected Detroit to go in order to retain his services. That commands a premium.
Fair enough. Hindsight is 20/20. However, I'm not relying on hindsight when I say that I was opposed to the signing and far more in favour of investing across a range of younger players, closer in age to Eddy and Tyson, primarily because I had no idea that the franchise was willing to part with Tyson. So, it seemed logical to me that we needed to sign someone who could develop WITH Tyson. Mostly, I favored it because it seemed to me that acquiring a young free agent, like Drew Gooden or Channing Frye, preserved the developmental perpetuity of the club. It would keep us in a position where someone was always developing, coming into his prime, much the way we now seem to suddenly now want Noah and Tyrus to instantly do. Perhaps their higher cielings will justify the delay, but, then again, we thought that about Eddy and Tyson too.
But, I also felt that diversification was a wiser approach to such a weak free agent class. It allowed for shorter contracts, which would have given us the flexibility to switch horses mid-race, if you will, by offering high dollar amounts for short periods, or lower dollar amounts for longer periods.
But throwing a boat-load of cash at a player over 30 seemed like a real desparation move to me. I tried to warm to the idea, but I'm not the least bit surpised that things have turned out the way they have.
There's no question that there was a bit of a skill redundancy between Tyson and Ben, but, in my book, Tyson's youth and relative affordability made him the much wiser option, and a move to Center, while sorting through the PF's available, like SAR, Gooden and Frye, seemed like somewhat of a move away from the inside outside defensive paradox created by coupling an interior scorer like Eddy Curry with an outside shooter like Ben Gordon, but certainly, in hindsight, would have been a much more digestible change than the offensively stagnant, jump-shot-oriented schemes later implemented by Skiles.
On the other hand, we won 49 games last season and got to the 2nd round of the playoffs with those schemes. So, what the hell do I know.
http://www.un.org/en/peace/
"While people are saying, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them ..., and they will not escape." - 1 Thess 5:2-3
"While people are saying, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them ..., and they will not escape." - 1 Thess 5:2-3
-
DuckIII
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 71,434
- And1: 36,770
- Joined: Nov 25, 2003
- Location: On my high horse.
-
Its clear that "the Bulls" intended to get Wallace, not make the Pistons match. There were reports, however, even when it happened that the move was driven by Reinsdorf and not Paxson.
I don't know if thats true or not. And frankly, I don't think it really matters. It might matter as far as Paxson's job security goes behind the scenes, as in Reinsdorf not holding it against Paxson because he knows it was really himself who pushed the deal. But it doesn't really matter as far as where we are now.
I don't know if thats true or not. And frankly, I don't think it really matters. It might matter as far as Paxson's job security goes behind the scenes, as in Reinsdorf not holding it against Paxson because he knows it was really himself who pushed the deal. But it doesn't really matter as far as where we are now.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
-
Cliff Levingston
- RealGM
- Posts: 22,667
- And1: 1,094
- Joined: May 29, 2003
- Location: Cliff Levingston is omnipresent.
-
Yes, Paxson really did want Ben Wallace. Maybe Reinsdorf had a hand in influencing Pax but we'll never know that for sure.
Sensibull: Eddy had been gone for a full year when we signed Wallace. It was Tyson who was handed the starting center job and a new $10mil per year contract the year before, and proceeded to have his worst year as a pro.
After that, there was a variety of logical reasons to go after Wallace:
- Best FA available
- Big big man available, and after Tyson's flop of a season, we needed an experienced big man that we could count on (supposedly) regardless of his skill set
- Supposedly a good leader in Detroit, and we were very devoid of veteran leadership
- Cap space: use it or lose it scenario
- Takes one of the best players off your biggest rival
At the time, the move made a lot of sense even though everyone knew the Bulls were overpaying. Had we not overpaid so exorbitantly, Wallace would've opted for the comfort of Detroit instead and we could be left out in the cold.
Also, Cliff Levingston thinks most people knew that Wallace wouldn't the a dominant force like he had been in Detroit due to his age, but no one really could've seen Wallace, a guy who makes his living on hustle and energy, not displaying effort and energy as much as he did/does.
Sensibull: Eddy had been gone for a full year when we signed Wallace. It was Tyson who was handed the starting center job and a new $10mil per year contract the year before, and proceeded to have his worst year as a pro.
After that, there was a variety of logical reasons to go after Wallace:
- Best FA available
- Big big man available, and after Tyson's flop of a season, we needed an experienced big man that we could count on (supposedly) regardless of his skill set
- Supposedly a good leader in Detroit, and we were very devoid of veteran leadership
- Cap space: use it or lose it scenario
- Takes one of the best players off your biggest rival
At the time, the move made a lot of sense even though everyone knew the Bulls were overpaying. Had we not overpaid so exorbitantly, Wallace would've opted for the comfort of Detroit instead and we could be left out in the cold.
Also, Cliff Levingston thinks most people knew that Wallace wouldn't the a dominant force like he had been in Detroit due to his age, but no one really could've seen Wallace, a guy who makes his living on hustle and energy, not displaying effort and energy as much as he did/does.